"Every night I cut out my heart. But in the morning it was full again."
Such a true and lovely line. Almasy knew what he was doing was wrong but still couldn't resist from doing it.
We do that all the time, I think. Knowing something isn't right and shouldn't be done but still doing it and end up thinking "How did I get here?".
Any thoughts on this?
I think I found a way home.
That's not what the line means.
His great love had left him. Every night he "cut out his heart" -- he tried to shut out his feelings for her, "but in the morning it was full again"--his love for her was back.
How can you interpret that line as saying he "knew what he was doing was wrong but still couldn't resist from (sic) doing it"?
Anyway, this is a great romantic story, not a morality play. Katherine's and Almasy's love is much greater than the passionless marriage she has with her doting husband. In the film, their love is not "wrong" because one of them is married. It's the marriage (to the wrong man) and Katherine's breaking the romance off to prevent her husband from being hurt, that yields the tragic consequences.
Every night Almasy cut out his heart (tried to deny his feelings for Katherine) but in the morning it was full again (he loved her as much as ever).
But the reason that he had to shut out his feelings was because it *was* wrong for them to be together. She was the wife of a friend and equal. A married woman, in many respects 'owned' by her husband, in an age where it was "Chaps only in the Long Bar, I'm afraid". Etiquette, honour and decency and a kind of modern day chivalry were the watchwords of the era. Any hint of public impropriety between Almasy and Katherine would have caused a scandal, and nearly did. Even later in the film when Almasy's best friend, Maddox, appears to be aware of the affair, he is extremely disapproving. ("Oh, pull yourself together, man!")
Geoffrey had also trusted Almasy and the other members of the 'Sand Club' to take care of his most precious 'possession' - his wife. And despite their attraction, Katherine and Almasy tried to honour that trust.
From the first moment they saw each other they were intrigued by and intensely attracted to each other. But because of the impossibility of their position, they try to ignore it by politely insulting and ignoring each other and building walls between themselves. But it makes no difference to their feelings.
When she arrives at his home and they first sleep together, I think they both assume that they will be able to 'get it out of their system' and that would be the end of it. Katherine lists her husband as one of her 'loves' and 'a lie' as one of her 'hates'. Almasy says he hates ownership and says "When you leave here you should forget me". However, they both later find that they cannot stop thinking about each other. In this, the OP is right in saying that they know it is wrong to be together but cannot resist.
It is not Katherine ending the relationship which yields the tragic consequences. Geoffrey already knows about it. He sat outside their house all night waiting for Katherine to return home. And instead she spends the night of their first anniversary in bed with Almasy. His plans for a surprise are ruined and his heart is broken.
It is not a morality play by any stretch, but the depth of feeling and passion can only be explained by the fact that their relationship was wrong. Katherine and Almasy would never be able to be together as man and wife, especially if they had to return to wartime Britain where all foreigners were treated with suspicion and often imprisoned. She would never be able to resume her aristocratic lifestyle or return to her family home. The fact that the relationship was doomed from the start meant that the flames of passion only burned brighter.
The tragic ending - Geoffrey's revenge, Almasy's inability to provide for the woman he loves because of his nationality, Maddox's suicide, Almasy's betrayal - are all due to the fact that two people were unable to control the intense feelings thundering inside them. Their love was not only wrong, it cost lives.
Thanks for the insightful write-up fiona-259.
rrb, it is not a morality play, but morality cannot be completely ignored when Almasy is with his friend's wife. If Katherine was single, then there might not even be a need to cut his heart out. Of course there is the problem of Almasy's nationality, but that would be second only to the fact that Katherine is a woman married to his friend.
Why so serious?
Why so dull? Clifton was not his friend. He'd never met him before he met Katherine, with whom he almost immediately fell in love.
You addressed almost nothing of what I said in my response to your OP.
"If Katherine was single, then there might not even be a need to cut his heart out." Come again? What are you saying?
"Of course there is the problem of Almasy's nationality..." Again, what are you talking about? How was his nationality a problem in his relationship with Katherine?
I have to laugh at people who think that any married person (including the fictional ones) who fall in love with someone else is automatically morally wrong--even a couple like Katherine and Almasy, two deeply passionate people who seem deemed to be together by nature itself, like Kathy & Heathcliff. Or is it the fact they had sex that bothers you? Perhaps you read Antony & Cleopatra the same way?
Almasy's inability to provide for the woman he loves because of his nationality
"If Katherine was single, then there might not even be a need to cut his heart out." Come again? What are you saying?
I have to laugh at people who think that any married person (including the fictional ones) who fall in love with someone else is automatically morally wrong
"*C*athy (not "Kathy")" -- What a prissy little pedant! ROFL!!
Do you actually believe that Bronte saw her heroine as morally at fault?
XD Hahaha, no no. Wuthering Heights is by far my favorite book, and I'm picky about silly things like how her name is spelled.
Hmm. Well, I don't really know too much about Bronte to give a good answer to that. It's hard to tell. If she herself was telling the story in third-person, you might be able to see some kind of tone in her storytelling. But as it is, the story's always told from someone else's point of view, whether it be Nelly or Lockwood, and it's THEIR tone we hear, not Bronte's.
Nonetheless, yes, I do. Catherine is endlessly selfish, and Heathcliff is unmerciful. They were born to be together, and their souls are made "of the same stuff." But it was morally wrong to marry Edgar. It may have been practical for her at the time to marry him, I suppose, but not moral at all. Edgar never deserved to be treated the way he did, made out to be a cuckold. And because of Catherine's superficiality, Heathcliff was engulfed in his plan for revenge. Lives were ruined.
"Picky"? "Pompous" and "anal" are more accurate words to describe people like you who enjoy correcting others' spelling on the internet.
Interesting that you say WH is your favorite book, but when asked if its author would judge her heroine as you do, you claim you wouldn't know. You even go so far as to say you can only know the expressed points of view of the fictional characters in the novel, but you can't imagine those of the author. A preposterous argument, unless you really are incapable of understanding what the author is saying through her work.
It's hard to imagine Bronte sitting in judgment on her heroine as you do, given her relationship with Heathcliff is on a higher plane that hers with Edgar. But that aspect may not be visible through your moralistic lens.
I'm sure you'll feel the need to respond, but FYI, I won't see it. Poof! You're gone.
Having a favorite book doesn't mean you know anything about the author. I think Rosemary's Baby is an amazing film, but that doesn't mean I know anything about Roman Polanski. And because it's told through Rosemary's point of view, the movie shows nothing of Polanski's point of view on the matter. That's just a silly argument.
Lol. You're just a childish person. But yes, yes, I'm gone. Oookay. XD
Having a favorite book doesn't mean you know anything about the author. I think Rosemary's Baby is an amazing film, but that doesn't mean I know anything about Roman Polanski. And because it's told through Rosemary's point of view, the movie shows nothing of Polanski's point of view on the matter. That's just a silly argument.
Lol. You're just a childish person, as evidenced by the fact that you would block anyone who disagrees with you.
-What does it matter?
-It matters! "What does it matter"? I wanna know!
God, are you off base. Anyone who claims to have a favorite novel, but when challenged, says they've no idea what the author intended, is a fool or (as in this case) unable to admit that their view of the protagonist is out of synch with the author's intention.
I ignore people who can't defend their opinions, but keep coming back blowing more smoke. I don't waste time on folks looking for that kind of ping-pong match.
Then there's someone like you, who tries to strike a superior attitude while claiming it's impossible to divine a director's viewpoint on his own film's subjects! That's even funnier than the attempted insult.
Then there's someone like you, who tries to strike a superior attitude
rrb has apparently never heard of the intentional fallacy.
shareOh gosh. I re-read all of this out of boredom, and now, I only wonder why I even bothered replying to that fool. Silly person didn't have any imagination beyond his/her big, pompous head.
I sincerely hope they haven't tried to pursue writing; readers (if any) would most certainly die of boredom because rrb would thrust his/her set of philosophies and morals into every single character, situation, and book (probably more akin to "magazine") without any subjectivity or originality. XDD
[deleted]
My opinion of Nelly has since changed, and I could not agree more. :)
Should the coward ever take a gander through old threads, as I did, as I want them to see my comments as I'm not sure which account they have on ignore. It worked before hah.
[deleted]
Oh gosh. I re-read all of this out of boredom, and now, I only wonder why I even bothered replying to that fool. Silly person didn't have any imagination beyond his/her big, pompous head.
I sincerely hope they haven't tried to pursue writing; readers (if any) would most certainly die of boredom because rrb would thrust his/her set of philosophies and morals into every single character, situation, and book (probably more akin to "magazine") without any subjectivity or originality. XDD
I'm so glad to read your point of view. I admired the artistry of the film, but really hated Katherine's character for what she did to Geoffrey, who did not deserve it. My take on him was that he was utterly destroyed and dishonored by her and that she was at heart a selfish ***** who would have gone from bed to bed trying to fill in what was essentially lacking in herself. The fact that she "forgot" her first (first!) anniversary and spent it in another man's bed just says it all. A beautiful and complex film that explored many different aspects of love--her's was not the positive aspect.
shareShould a person really be owned?
shareEvery night Almasy cut out his heart (tried to deny his feelings for Katherine) but in the morning it was full again (he loved her as much as ever). But the reason that he had to shut out his feelings was because it *was* wrong for them to be together. She was the wife of a friend and equal.
The tragic ending - Geoffrey's revenge, Almasy's inability to provide for the woman he loves because of his nationality, Maddox's suicide, Almasy's betrayal - are all due to the fact that two people were unable to control the intense feelings thundering inside them. Their love was not only wrong, it cost lives.
One of my favorite movies and love stories. I happened to turn the movie on just last night during this scene, beautiful line.
shareI won't comment on the other discussion of morality and infidelity within this thread , as it is far too intense for me. But with regard to the line of dialogue itself... I believe it to be a parallel to an earlier bit in the movie. Just after the sandstorm, when Almasy and Katherine were trying to dig the others out of the sand, it was a desperate moment. Maddox and the others had just passed them by and Katherine was worried about their water supply. Lazlo explained to her that there is a "plant, that if you cut out its heart, by morning it should be filled with a liquid." Katherine chimed in," find that plant, cut out its heart..." (sorry i know quotes aren't exact). So when Almasy says This to her again I think he's referencing that intense time they spent together..when faced with an imminent death their feelings for one another had materialized. It ignited his intense and undying love for her. So when forced to give her up, he compares himself to the plant. Though he can't literally be with her, he can't deny their spiritual connection. No matter how much he tries to eradicate his love for her, it's always returning. Like he plant's liquid. Thoughts?
share[deleted]
My favorite line is "The dingo ate your baby!"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Also, as I was watching this movie the other day, I noticed in scene in the desert, after the sandstorm when Katharine and Almasy are digging their friends buried car out of the sand, Katharine asks if there's enough water for them. Almasy replies, describing a type of plant indigenous to the desert that if you cut ''a piece out in a heart shape'', that in the morning it will be full with water. I believe he referenced this with that line in the cave, using that experience they shared as a way to describe his pain.
sharewow, strong observation boolingallee, i think u might be right.
share